Actus Reus Flashcards
What is an actus reus?
It is the doing part of the offence, e.g. stabbing, shooting or hitting.
What are the four types of crimes?
- Action crimes
- Result crimes
- State of affair crimes
- Omissions
What are action crimes?
Here the AR is just an act, the consequence of that act are immaterial. For example perjury is committed whenever a person makes an untrue statement under oath in court. It is immaterial whether or not that statement makes a difference to the outcome of the trial.
What are result crimes?
Here the defendant’s behaviour produces a result. For example a murderer must cause the victim’s death. Result crimes raise the issue of causation, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s behaviour caused the victims death.
What are state of affairs crimes?
Someone can be convicted just because they belong to an organisation or they are in a place where they are not supposed to be. If it is an offence that falls under state of affairs then the AR of the defendant can be involuntary.
Winzar V Chief Constable of Kent 1983?
The defendant was brought into hospital on a stretcher, the doctor discovered that he was only drunk and was asked to leave. When he refused to leave the police were called and they moved him onto the highway and then charged him with being found drunk on a public highway.
R V Larsonneur 1933?
Larsonneur was a French subject who was required to leave the UK on a certain date. Instead of leaving she visited Ireland and the Irish Authorities brought her back to the UK where she was convicted ‘as an alien who was found in the UK’ contrary to the Aliens Order 1920.
What are omissions?
Usually there is only criminal liability where someone does a positive act but sometimes an omission or failing to act can amount to the AR of a crime. The general rule is that there is no liability for failing to act unless a person is under a legal duty to take positive action.
Coincidence of AR and MR?
It is important to establish the AR and MR coincided at the same time.
Fagan 1969?
Fagan was being directed to park his car by a police officer. Fagan drove onto the police officers foot, the police officer told Fagan to remove the vehicle from his foot but Fagan told him to ‘f*** off’ and wait and then switched the engine off. The officer repeated his request, Fagan eventually turned his engine back on and drove off the officers foot. At the point he drove onto the police officers foot it could be argued there had been no MR as it could just have been an accident, but Fagan knowingly remained on the police officers foot and at this point he had the AR. As he intended to remain on the police officers foot he also has the MR.
What is the continuing act theory?
Where all the actions of the defendant can be considered as one act and this fulfils the AR.
Thabo Meli and Others 1954 (Privy Council)?
Thabo Meli and others hit the victim over the head with a piece of wood. The defendants thought that they had killed him and rolled his body over a low cliff. The victim died of exposure rather than the injury. The defendant’s were charged with murder as they had the intention to kill from the outset.
Church 1965?
Church had taken a woman in his van to an isolated spot next to a river and they proceeded to have sex. However, they had an argument afterwards because he did not satisfy her sexually, he got angry and hit her and became unconscious. He thought he had killed her and threw her body into the river. However she was not dead at the time he threw her into the river and she drowned. He was found guilty of manslaughter and the judge said ‘his behaviour from the moment he first struck her to the moment he threw her into the river was a series of acts.’
What is the doctrine of transferred malice?
If Jenny shoots Helen intending to kill her, but she misses and shoots and kills Carl instead then Jenny will still be found guilty of murder even though she did not kill her intended victim. The intention simply transfers from Helen to Carl.
Latimer 1886?
The defendant was having an argument in a pub, he took his belt off and swung it at his intended victim but it hit a bystander instead. Even though it was an accident he was still convicted of malicious wounding.
